The White House keeps implying that Barack Obama wants to "go big" on a deal to slash trillions from projected deficits in exchange for Republican support to lift the ceiling on U.S. government borrowing.
The way deals get made in Washington, however, makes "going small" a far more likely denouement by the time the Aug. 2 deadline arrives.
So small, in fact, that politicians could have to do this dance all over again just as Americans are preparing to go to the polls in late 2012.
As the President convened congressional leaders at the White House on Thursday, he held out the prospect that Republicans and Democrats could still reach a deficit reduction mega-deal before month's end.
"Everybody acknowledged that the issue of our debt and our deficit is something that needs to be tackled now," Mr. Obama told reporters after the meeting. "Everybody acknowledged that in order to do that, Democrats and Republicans are going to be needed in each chamber" of Congress.
The "hard bargaining" is set to begin on Sunday, when Mr. Obama has asked the same leaders from the Senate and House of Representatives to return to the White House after assessing "each other's bottom lines."
But the "bottom lines" in each party (and faction thereof) make reaching the ambitious deal Mr. Obama seeks an improbable outcome.
Americans woke up Thursday morning to news reports (citing unnamed sources) that Mr. Obama was offering major cuts to the costliest entitlement programs - the Social Security retirement plan and Medicare health plan for seniors - in exchange for getting Republicans to agree to a reform of the tax code that would bring in $1-trillion (U.S.) in new revenue over 10 years.
The mere suggestion is explosive. Mr. Obama would risk open revolt by his Democratic base by acceding to Social Security cuts. And Democrats see an unpopular GOP budget proposal seeking to slash Medicare as their ticket to winning the House back next year. Why would they give up that advantage by agreeing to chop Medicare themselves?
Meanwhile, most Republicans insist that any change to the tax code that is not revenue neutral is tantamount to a tax increase, an issue on which the GOP has drawn a line in the sand.
"The President is putting Social Security out there to show he's open to everything. But Democrats in the House are clear they don't want to touch it," American University history professor Allan Lichtman said. "I think we're looking at a great game of chicken that goes right down to the wire."
The result is that Congress could end up settling for a "mini-deal" that would enable the government to borrow only enough to get through next year and avert the calamitous default that would occur without an agreement to lift the current $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2.
Congress last raised the debt limit by $1.9-trillion in early 2010, an exceptionally large increase by historical standards. But that was when Democrats held majorities in both chambers and used them to raise the debt limit with no strings attached.
Republicans, under Speaker John Boehner, now control the House. He has made his support conditional on getting $1 in deficit reduction for every $1 increase in the debt limit.
Mr. Boehner faces an added constraint: As many as several dozen Tea Party adherents in his 240-member caucus, led by Minnesota congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, will not vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. Hence, the Speaker will need some Democratic votes to get a budget deal through the House.
White House officials have floated the idea that Mr. Obama is seeking $4-trillion in deficit reduction, but arriving at a number that large on terms that can rally a majority of votes in both chambers makes finding a cure for cancer look easy. Few seasoned budget crunchers see it happening.
Yet the administration's ambition is understandable. Mr. Obama needs a debt ceiling increase of at least $2.4-trillion now if he is to avoid having to go back to Congress for another messy vote on the borrowing limit before the November, 2012, presidential election.
A deal that meets or exceeds $2.4-trillion would be a major victory for the President, buttressing his credibility with independent voters. His handling of the deficit has been his Achilles heel thus far. Polls show almost 60 per cent of voters disapprove of his management of public finances.
"This [budget]deal needs to result in either a better economy next year, or at least people feeling better about the economy next year, for him to succeed electorally," offered Nathan Gonzalez of The Rothenberg Political Report. "But if this deal just leads to more fighting and more of a struggling economy, then his re-election chances will suffer."
No wonder the White House would rather think big. The reality is that Washington these days usually only does small.
Konrad Yakabuski